UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN HENRY BRIDGES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00380-CCE-1)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William Stimson Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT 

LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States 

Attorney, K. P. Kennedy Gates, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Henry Bridges appeals the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty 

plea to access with intent to view child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). His sole challenge on appeal concerns the substantive 

reasonableness of his custodial sentence. We affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). To be substantively reasonable, 

a sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes 

of federal sentencing, in light of the [Sentencing] Guidelines and other [18 U.S.C.] 

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 

306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

Here, the district court varied downward from the 57-to-71-month Guidelines range, 

explaining that Bridges’ conduct fell on “the less horrible end” of the spectrum of child 

pornography cases. Even so, the court emphasized the serious nature of the offense and 

the pressing need for general deterrence. 

In arguing that his downward variance sentence is still too harsh, Bridges cites his 

cooperation and candor with law enforcement, his strong feeling of remorse, the likelihood 

that he will not reoffend, and his otherwise spotless criminal record. Though well-taken, 

these points fall short of rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to 
3

Bridges’ below-Guidelines sentence, especially in light of the untold damage wrought by 

people who create a demand for child pornography and the need to deter others from 

supporting this illicit market. Simply put, this is not “one of the rare cases where the 

sentence imposed by the district court was substantively unreasonable in light of the 

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Abed, 3 F.4th 104, 119 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED